6 ms·

This is idiotic. I really respected Spotify for their position in the face of 'controversy.' I'm not a JRE listener, but believe in free speech. What Spotify

This is idiotic. I really respected Spotify for their position in the face of 'controversy.' I'm not a JRE listener, but believe in free speech. What Spotify is doing now just pisses off both sides. Pro speech people don't like this, JRE listeners don't like this, and anti Rogan people won't stop until he's 'canceled' completely.

rainonmoon 5y ago
Fortunately Rogan is still as free as ever to publish these episodes in any other venue, but Spotify (like any publisher) reserves the right to host (or not) whatever content it wants. This isn't an infringement on anyone's speech, so hopefully "pro-speech" people (interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people) are just as happy as they were yesterday. EDIT: A lot of reflexive comments here very quickly assuming this is about removing Rogan's COVID-sensitive content, but looking at the list of removed episodes and how many guests are the subjects of serious sexual allegations, people might want to consider who they're actually defending here.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  I'm actually not sure that's true, it depends on the precise details of spotify's contract with rogan. Part of it was exclusivity. But even still, its censorship Rogan opted into to get $$$.
  - rainonmoon 5y ago
    You're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      Is he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.
      - rainonmoon 5y ago
        It's meaningless to speculate but I doubt Spotify can stop Joe Rogan from repeating any of the assertions made in his podcasts on, say, Twitter, or at live events, or in a bar. In terms of whether this is an issue of freedom of speech, the point is he has the same rights as he had yesterday.
- femto113 5y ago
  Actually Spotify bought the exclusive rights to his full back catalog (for a lot of money) so he's not free to publish them elsewhere.
  - TOMDM 5y ago
    So he sold the rights to Spotify so they can do with it whatever they want
- silisili 5y ago
  > interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people People threatening to leave if you let someone else talk is pretty much a good definition of being against free speech.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    So if I insult and berate you at a party, and you choose to go home after seeing that the host won't intervene, you're the one who's against free speech?
    - silisili 5y ago
      I think that's a little unfair. If Spotify were just say, Neil Young and Joe Rogan material, this would be way different. To your example, if the party had say 50k people at it, correct. I really wouldn't care what one person was saying. That aside, I don't recall Rogan attacking anyone directly.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      Insulting and berating has a somewhat threatening connotation to me and so I think isn't even a remotely accurate analogy. Say Bob and Sue are at the party talking about some topic you don't approve of. They aren't talking to you, just each other. You request that the host remove them. The host refuses. So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place in order to pressure the host to kick Bob and Sue out. Such actions are clearly anti free speech.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        > So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place So...exercising your free speech to convince other people to exercise their free speech? Sounds like lots of free speech to me. It's up to the host whose presence they value more. They can always decide you're an irritating busybody and no one wants your negativity killing the vibe.
  - Kaze404 5y ago
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Is he able to republish these episodes? No exclusivity contract?
  - mohamez 5y ago
    I think it's exclusive, otherwise why would he stop publishing on YouTube.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Yes it was exclusive, but I wonder if the exclusivity applies for episodes Spotify decides not to host/publish. I would imagine there has to be a usage clause in the exclusivity deal which reverts rights back to Rogan if Spotify doesn't publish the JRE in part or whole.
- Gimpei 5y ago
  Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; Simone be Beauvoir was banned from teaching for molesting her students [1]; and Foucault may have molested children [2], and certainly he advocated for the right to have sex with minors [3]. The publisher's of these philosophers are private companies so why don't we wage a twitter campaign against them until they stop publishing these racists and sexual predators. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_li... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
ec109685 5y ago
This is a good analysis of one of his more controversial podcasts. It’s not him presenting “both sides”. He has an agenda and his guests push flat out lies that go unchecked: https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-joe-rogan-spotify-thoughts/ https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-joe-rogan-spotify-thou...
- silisili 5y ago
  Trust me, I know enough to not listen to the guy. I saw clips of his Bill Burr episode where tried to make wearing masks 'gay' in the bad way, and it kinda pissed me off. I don't like the guy, but I just do what any other reasonable person does and don't listen to him.
  - inferiorhuman 5y ago
    Oh I liked the Rogaine + Burr episode where he shouted down a primatologist for being stupid and not checking the internet for wisdom first. He closed by mocking her for having a vagina. He's really an impressively free thinker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E&t=342s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E&t=342s "You're a fucking idiot go online and look it up." "Go online and look it up." "Yeah you've learned from shit from college. When was the last time you got online and researched primates." "Stupid" "Stupid" "Stupid" … "I have a vagina."
    - Aurelius3 5y ago
      That wasin't a podcast episode, it was a radio talk show called opie and anthony that ran from 1995 to 2014, this call was likely from around 2005. The whole point of the radio talk show was to bring on funny comedians like burr and rogan, have them talk shit and be funny, do over the top studio stunts, bring in wacky guests off the street, etc. The two hosts were at the top of the "shock jock" business in America for over a decade, and this hilarious 8 minute video is a golden slice of that kind of content. If you take anything in that vid seriously you have a weak sense of humour and are easily missled, rogan killed in the vid and so did burr.
  - 5y ago
paulcole 5y ago
> Pro speech people don't like this I’m “pro speech” and I love this! No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do. They have a contract with Joe Rogan, are ostensibly honoring it, and are making a decision on what speech they want to be associated with. What else do you want them to do? Be forced by someone to make a decision they don’t want to make? That doesn’t sound like something someone who believes in free speech would want.
- TOMDM 5y ago
  Exactly, if you want to take issue with Spotify's decision that's fine, but calling this a speech issue is short sighted. Would we really want to further limit what right holders are allowed to do with their property?
- nprz 5y ago
  > No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do Yes they did. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-spotify-covid-white-house-b2005488.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
  - paulcole 5y ago
    Not particularly interested in debating whether “told” equals “forced” in this context. I suspect you understood my intention.
    - salawat 5y ago
      I question whether you actually realize the size of metaphorical gun barrel that company would be potentially looking down given the public's attitude on tech companies at the moment. Government is one of those things where even the appearance of impropriety is as nad as the actual thing. That crossed the line into blatant quid-pro-quo.
      - paulcole 5y ago
        Someone putting a literal gun to my head is much different from someone saying that someone else is putting a metaphorical gun to my head.
RobLach 5y ago
This has nothing to do with free speech. Spotify is not being compelled by any authority to remove or keep content on their platform. The only reason why Spotify hosts or removes content is because it's what they decide is best given market pressures.
- tomschlick 5y ago
  Free speech is a principle that is not exclusive to the Constitution. Something can be anti-free speech and not involve the government.
  - waffle_maniac 5y ago
    But doesn’t apply to corporations?
  - RobLach 5y ago
    Sure, but some external force compelling Spotify against their will to publish speech or censor speech, using their own resources, to harm themselves, is precisely not free speech. Spotify sells subscriptions to content to make a profit. If something harms that why should they be forced to endure that?
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
Your free speech rights stop where my property rights start. Or alternatively: whose speech is more important? Rogans or Spotify's? If companies can select who they will publish to please people they can also 'cancel' them to please people, or do artists somehow have tenure once they become controversial and divisive?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rainonmoon 5y ago

Fortunately Rogan is still as free as ever to publish these episodes in any other venue, but Spotify (like any publisher) reserves the right to host (or not) whatever content it wants. This isn't an infringement on anyone's speech, so hopefully "pro-speech" people (interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people) are just as happy as they were yesterday. EDIT: A lot of reflexive comments here very quickly assuming this is about removing Rogan's COVID-sensitive content, but looking at the list of removed episodes and how many guests are the subjects of serious sexual allegations, people might want to consider who they're actually defending here.

joshuamorton 5y ago
I'm actually not sure that's true, it depends on the precise details of spotify's contract with rogan. Part of it was exclusivity. But even still, its censorship Rogan opted into to get $$$.
- rainonmoon 5y ago
  You're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Is he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.
    - rainonmoon 5y ago
      It's meaningless to speculate but I doubt Spotify can stop Joe Rogan from repeating any of the assertions made in his podcasts on, say, Twitter, or at live events, or in a bar. In terms of whether this is an issue of freedom of speech, the point is he has the same rights as he had yesterday.
femto113 5y ago
Actually Spotify bought the exclusive rights to his full back catalog (for a lot of money) so he's not free to publish them elsewhere.
- TOMDM 5y ago
  So he sold the rights to Spotify so they can do with it whatever they want
silisili 5y ago
> interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people People threatening to leave if you let someone else talk is pretty much a good definition of being against free speech.
- triceratops 5y ago
  So if I insult and berate you at a party, and you choose to go home after seeing that the host won't intervene, you're the one who's against free speech?
  - silisili 5y ago
    I think that's a little unfair. If Spotify were just say, Neil Young and Joe Rogan material, this would be way different. To your example, if the party had say 50k people at it, correct. I really wouldn't care what one person was saying. That aside, I don't recall Rogan attacking anyone directly.
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    Insulting and berating has a somewhat threatening connotation to me and so I think isn't even a remotely accurate analogy. Say Bob and Sue are at the party talking about some topic you don't approve of. They aren't talking to you, just each other. You request that the host remove them. The host refuses. So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place in order to pressure the host to kick Bob and Sue out. Such actions are clearly anti free speech.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > So you attempt to get other people to very vocally leave the place So...exercising your free speech to convince other people to exercise their free speech? Sounds like lots of free speech to me. It's up to the host whose presence they value more. They can always decide you're an irritating busybody and no one wants your negativity killing the vibe.
- Kaze404 5y ago
ekianjo 5y ago
Is he able to republish these episodes? No exclusivity contract?
- mohamez 5y ago
  I think it's exclusive, otherwise why would he stop publishing on YouTube.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Yes it was exclusive, but I wonder if the exclusivity applies for episodes Spotify decides not to host/publish. I would imagine there has to be a usage clause in the exclusivity deal which reverts rights back to Rogan if Spotify doesn't publish the JRE in part or whole.
Gimpei 5y ago
Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; Simone be Beauvoir was banned from teaching for molesting her students [1]; and Foucault may have molested children [2], and certainly he advocated for the right to have sex with minors [3]. The publisher's of these philosophers are private companies so why don't we wage a twitter campaign against them until they stop publishing these racists and sexual predators. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_li... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...

ec109685 5y ago

This is a good analysis of one of his more controversial podcasts. It’s not him presenting “both sides”. He has an agenda and his guests push flat out lies that go unchecked: https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-joe-rogan-spotify-thoughts/ https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-joe-rogan-spotify-thou...

silisili 5y ago
Trust me, I know enough to not listen to the guy. I saw clips of his Bill Burr episode where tried to make wearing masks 'gay' in the bad way, and it kinda pissed me off. I don't like the guy, but I just do what any other reasonable person does and don't listen to him.
- inferiorhuman 5y ago
  Oh I liked the Rogaine + Burr episode where he shouted down a primatologist for being stupid and not checking the internet for wisdom first. He closed by mocking her for having a vagina. He's really an impressively free thinker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E&t=342s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E&t=342s "You're a fucking idiot go online and look it up." "Go online and look it up." "Yeah you've learned from shit from college. When was the last time you got online and researched primates." "Stupid" "Stupid" "Stupid" … "I have a vagina."
  - Aurelius3 5y ago
    That wasin't a podcast episode, it was a radio talk show called opie and anthony that ran from 1995 to 2014, this call was likely from around 2005. The whole point of the radio talk show was to bring on funny comedians like burr and rogan, have them talk shit and be funny, do over the top studio stunts, bring in wacky guests off the street, etc. The two hosts were at the top of the "shock jock" business in America for over a decade, and this hilarious 8 minute video is a golden slice of that kind of content. If you take anything in that vid seriously you have a weak sense of humour and are easily missled, rogan killed in the vid and so did burr.
- 5y ago

paulcole 5y ago

> Pro speech people don't like this I’m “pro speech” and I love this! No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do. They have a contract with Joe Rogan, are ostensibly honoring it, and are making a decision on what speech they want to be associated with. What else do you want them to do? Be forced by someone to make a decision they don’t want to make? That doesn’t sound like something someone who believes in free speech would want.

TOMDM 5y ago
Exactly, if you want to take issue with Spotify's decision that's fine, but calling this a speech issue is short sighted. Would we really want to further limit what right holders are allowed to do with their property?
nprz 5y ago
> No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do Yes they did. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-spotify-covid-white-house-b2005488.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
- paulcole 5y ago
  Not particularly interested in debating whether “told” equals “forced” in this context. I suspect you understood my intention.
  - salawat 5y ago
    I question whether you actually realize the size of metaphorical gun barrel that company would be potentially looking down given the public's attitude on tech companies at the moment. Government is one of those things where even the appearance of impropriety is as nad as the actual thing. That crossed the line into blatant quid-pro-quo.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      Someone putting a literal gun to my head is much different from someone saying that someone else is putting a metaphorical gun to my head.

RobLach 5y ago

This has nothing to do with free speech. Spotify is not being compelled by any authority to remove or keep content on their platform. The only reason why Spotify hosts or removes content is because it's what they decide is best given market pressures.

tomschlick 5y ago
Free speech is a principle that is not exclusive to the Constitution. Something can be anti-free speech and not involve the government.
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  But doesn’t apply to corporations?
- RobLach 5y ago
  Sure, but some external force compelling Spotify against their will to publish speech or censor speech, using their own resources, to harm themselves, is precisely not free speech. Spotify sells subscriptions to content to make a profit. If something harms that why should they be forced to endure that?

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

Your free speech rights stop where my property rights start. Or alternatively: whose speech is more important? Rogans or Spotify's? If companies can select who they will publish to please people they can also 'cancel' them to please people, or do artists somehow have tenure once they become controversial and divisive?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]